Cited by 53Diabetes and associated disordersDiabetes Management and ResearchT-cell and B-cell Immunology

GAD vaccine reduces insulin loss in recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes: findings from a Bayesian meta-analysis

Open access
the Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Study Group, Beam, Craig A., MacCallum, Colleen, Herold, Kevan C., Wherrett, Diane K., Palmer, Jerry, Ludvigsson, Johnny·2017·Diabetologia

Abstract

Aims/hypothesis GAD is a major target of the autoimmune response that occurs in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Randomised controlled clinical trials of a GAD + alum vaccine in human participants have so far given conflicting results.Methods In this study, we sought to see whether a clearer answer to the question of whether GAD65 has an effect on C-peptide could be reached by combining individual-level data from the randomised controlled trials using Bayesian meta-analysis to estimate the probability of a positive biological effect (a reduction in C-peptide loss compared with placebo approximately 1 year after the GAD vaccine).Results We estimate that there is a 98% probability that 20 μg GAD with alum administered twice yields a positive biological effect. The effect is probably a 15-20% reduction in the loss of C-peptide at approximately 1 year after treatment. This translates to an annual expected loss of between -0.250 and -0.235 pmol/ml in treated patients compared with an expected 2 h AUC loss of -0.294 pmol/ml at 1 year for untreated newly diagnosed patients.Conclusions/interpretation The biological effect of this vaccination should be developed further in order to reach clinically desirable reductions in insulin loss in patients recently diagnosed with type 1 diabetes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00125-016-4122-1

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Trials of antigen therapy with different GAD protein forms have had mixed results, mostly negative.

    “Antigen-based trials have used various forms of glutamate decarboxylase (GAD) protein, which have shown mixed but mostly negative results.139–141”

    From Type 1 diabetes (2018) · cites this paper as [139]

    The Introduction reports mixed trial findings: two studies had non-significant primary endpoints, while the third had a non-significant primary endpoint but significant secondary results. That supports the characterization of trial results as mixed and mostly negative on primary endpoints. However, the Methods say the trials used the same study drug with different dosing regimens, not different GAD protein forms; the Discussion also concludes that a small positive biological effect is highly likely. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
the Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Study Group, Beam, C. A., MacCallum, C., Herold, K. C., Wherrett, D. K., Palmer, J., & Ludvigsson, J.
Affiliations
  • Western Michigan University (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Linköping University (SE)
Corresponding author
Beam, Craig A.
Venue
Diabetologia
Published
2016-10-04
Volume
60
Issue
1
Pages
43-49
ISSN
  • 0012-186X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0428
OpenAlex
W2528836831
Cited by
53
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3
FWCI
2.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (1-INO-20140170-A-V)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › T-cell and B-cell Immunology
Keywords
type 1 diabetes, alum adjuvant, newly diagnosed diabetes, immunotherapy
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Bayes Theorem, Child, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Female, Glutamate Decarboxylase, Humans, Insulin, Male, Middle Aged, Vaccines, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review